PAPPU ROUT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act in connection with S.T. No. 153 of 2016, arising out of Dumka Town P.S. Case No. 106 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 533 of 2016 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Though, the informant has claimed himself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, yet it would appear from his written-report that his house was situated 50 meters away from the place of occurrence which was in front of the shop of one Sadanand Rout. Though, the informant has not named the petitioner in the F.I.R. being the assailant, yet in his re-statement he has named the petitioner as the main assailant. However, Sadanand Rout has not named the petitioner as the assailant. The petitioner, who happens to be the cousin of the deceased has been implicated in this case due to political rivalry. All other co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by the different Benches of this Court. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.05.2016 and, therefore, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail submit that the informant being the eye-witness to the occurrence has clearly named the petitioner, as the person who shot fire on the deceased. Moreover, other eye-witnesses namely, Sandeep Kumar @ Jai Bambam, Balmukund Rout and Anuj Rout have also named the petitioner as the main assailant, who opened fire on the deceased due to which he died. The case of the other co-accused persons cannot be equated with the petitioner and, therefore, he may not be given the privilege of regular bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, named above, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner's prayer for bail, is hereby, rejected.